On Monday 27 October 2003 08:32, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Thanks. Though, his particular implementation is patented, hence his
reluctance to release it under the GPL.
I'm sorry - but this is utter bullshit.
First, a particular implementation cannot be patented. It might be
considered practicing
On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:23, Eran Tromer wrote:
I must insist, however, that the definition of derivative work, though
indeed external to the GPL, is far from trivial in our case. Moreover,
the GPL further muddies the water in its Section 2 paragraph 5 (not
paragraph 4 as I said earlier;
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your client has a patent on something which the program implements he
can release the source code under the GPL without a worry because a
patent license is still required to practice the patent - run the
program even without any consideration
def DISCLAIMER():
for i in range(0,100):
IANAL
DISCLAIMER()
Software patents are against the ideology of FSF.
FSF never intended the GPL to coexist with software patents.
The client in question has two alternatives:
1. License the patent without fee to all distributors and users of GPLed
On Monday 27 October 2003 10:31, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your client has a patent on something which the program implements he
can release the source code under the GPL without a worry because a
patent license is still required to practice the
Ahoy,
On 2003/10/26 21:33, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote:
The distiction is anything but simple. [snip]
My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a
choice of lexical structure usually denotes two separate subjects are
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 23:38, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
The GPL, by design, is not a contract. As such, you must bring
yourself under its influence by wishing to distribute copyrighted
work for which the GPL was declared as a license.
I'm not
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Eran Tromer wrote:
As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference
between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands?
In one case, you're using the application as it was planned to be
used by a user. In the other
Eran Tromer wrote:
Ahoy,
On 2003/10/26 21:33, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote:
The distiction is anything but simple. [snip]
My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a
choice of lexical structure usually denotes two
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the
communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e.
not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat
On Sunday 26 October 2003 23:38, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
The GPL, by design, is not a contract. As such, you must bring
yourself under its influence by wishing to distribute copyrighted
work for which the GPL was declared as a license.
I'm not lawyer and I might be dead wrong here, but for
On 2003/10/26 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived work from the
GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not, LGPLed, for example) can
only be distributed under the GPL license by him.
In practice what this usually boils down to
On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where
the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard
(i.e. not HTTP
On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:23, Eran Tromer wrote:
My first sentance (The distiction is anything but simple.) refers
to your first paragraph. The rest of my reply refers to your second
paragraph. Indeed, I neglected to employ appropriate lexical
constructs and quoting conventions, leading to
On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote:
On 2003/10/26 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived
work from the GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not,
LGPLed, for example) can only be distributed under the GPL
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the
communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e.
not HTTP or likes
, 26 2003, 16:26,Tal, Shachar:
not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified
GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or
LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol
implementation
gtk is LGPL you are safe.
--
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the
communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e.
not HTTP or likes
On Sunday 26 October 2003 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where
the communication protocols
]'
Subject: Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine:
That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server
20 matches
Mail list logo
